What Cheney Actually Said

Many in the media have been reporting what Vice President Dick Cheney didn't say, while claiming that he did say it. So I'm going to try and set the record straight with what Cheney did say. As reason has noted,

Here's the full relevant statement from the transcript:


Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Most of the reports either omit the rest of the quotation entirely, or append it elsewhere, as though they weren't part of one long, multi-clause sentence. As I read this, he's not saying the danger is that if we elect Kerry, then the danger is that we'll be attacked. He's saying that if we elect Kerry and we're attacked, then the danger is that we'll treat it as a criminal act rather than an act of war. And in context, it's actually pretty transparent that this is what Cheney intended. So transparent once you look at the full transcript, in fact, that I wonder whether some of the misreading isn't deliberate, either as a partisan tactic or an attempt to generate a news story.


So he was misquoted. But don't expect the liberal media to rush to correct this.

Comments

  1. DomenicoSeptember 9, 2004 at 5:51 PM

    You repeat the myth of the liberal media. The media's
    owners are corporations and I don't know many corporations
    which I'd call liberal. The media's sponsors through advertising
    are also corporations. Even assumimg that reporters and editors
    are liberal, they could not do their liberal work because
    their bosses are not liberal.
    Conservatives have created a myth about the liberal media.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hispanic PunditSeptember 9, 2004 at 8:24 PM

    I've heard this response before, and you may have a point. Atleast economically speaking. However, I would say that the media is *atleast* socially liberal. In other words, they are for abortion, they are for homosexual marriage, and they are for gun control. On social issues, they lean to the left. On Economic issues, they may be "bi-partisan", so that would still mean that overall, they lean left, liberal. Do you agree with that analysis?

    ReplyDelete
  3. True_LiberalSeptember 10, 2004 at 4:41 AM

    A simple test:


    How often have you heard the term "Far-left" or "ultra-liberal" in the media?
    How often have you heard the term "Far-right" or "ultra-conservative" in the media?

    The proof is left to the student.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Kerry And Gay Marriage

With the recent resignation of Democrat New Jersey governor, announcing his homosexual affair , and the recent California Supreme Court decision voiding homosexual certificates I thought it a good time to discuss Presidential Candidate John Kerry's view on homosexual marriage. A few months ago there was a bill going through the senate that would have created a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as only between a man and a women. Kerry used the states right argument to argue against it. Arguing that we should let the states decide instead of forcing at the federal level. That's odd he would use that argument because when a bill came through the senate pushed through by Bill Clinton, called the Defense of Marriage Act, arguing for the exact same thing, Kerry voted against it . A bill that was passed with 85% of the senate voting in favor of it, with both Democrats and Republicans voting for it. However Kerry, being the extreme liberal that he is, voted against it. In c...
Read more

The Importance Of Kerry's Cambodia Claim

Image
As I have posted on this blog before , The Swift Boat Vets against Kerry have already caught Kerry in at least one lie; the claim that he was in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968. Joshua Muravchik, writing in the Washington Post explains why that lie is so significant, he writes , After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...
Read more

Vietnam Boomerang

The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be. . . . Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question. ----John Kerry, questioning President Bush's military-service record, February 8, 2004. So begins an article by the Wall Street Journal demonstrating how John Kerry brought the recent criticism by swift boat vets upon himself. The article states, A good rule in politics is that anyone who picks a fight ought to be prepared to finish it. But having first questioned Mr. Bush's war service, and then made Vietnam the core of his own campaign for President, Mr. Kerry now cries No mas ! because other Vietnam vets are assailing his behavior before and after that war. And, by the way, Mr. Bush is supposedly honor bound to repudiate them. What did Mr. Kerry expect, anyway? That claiming to be a hero himself while accusing other veterans of "war crimes"--as he did...
Read more